Which of these is the primary enabler of mass shootings in the USA?

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Let me get this straight, you believe that after having passed around the original Constitution draft to the colonies, which contains all the wherewithal about national defense and the Commander in Chief and all, the delegates returned with their list of improvements/additions to the Constitution that had been proposed, and one of them was for the nation to be sure and give itself permission to arm and defend itself?  

Huh?

[Offthemat]

14 minutes ago, BobDole said:

All laws infringe on the rights the law abiding citizens don't they? 

No

[WrestlingRasta]

@mspart I read all of your quotes. Enjoy, and agree with each of them.  I would ask in response what legislation is being proposed, or has been, that is asking to disarm the people of the United States, keeping in mind that there is a difference between disarming and well regulating? 
 

Can we at least start there, that there is a difference between disarming and regulating? It’s a lot more difficult to find a common ground starting from the extremes, rather than start from the middle and work from there. 

[mspart]

16 minutes ago, BobDole said:

All laws infringe on the rights the law abiding citizens don't they? 

I suppose there is a point here.   You are law abiding until there is a law made against what you do.   Then if you keep doing it, you are not law abiding. 

A law against stealing presents a law abiding person no issue.  But if stealing is somehow redefined to make it what it is not currently (and we have a number of examples of this in the political spectrum right now), then that law abiding person might not be law abiding.  

For instance, here in WA, your child says he/she is trans.   You say no you are not, you are going through a phase etc.   If they run away and somehow the state gets their hands on them, WA will not tell the parents where the child is.   The child will go to a "foster" home that is not under the foster system.  Then the child will be given the treatments they are seeking for.   This used to be only a result of serious abuse, either mental or physical.   Now this opinion regarding trans is categorized as abuse.   And the state has made kidnapping a minor child legal for the state to do in this case.   This just became law, and there is a referendum trying to get signatures to put this on the ballot to reject it, but if not, then the parents are no longer acting legally if they do this or hold this opinion and are being forced to accept trans ideology and assist their minor child in transitioning or lose their child.   This was not the case 1 month ago, but now is based on the law that just passed the legislature and signed by the governor. 

Kind of a different example, but one that is happening right here right now.

mspart

[BobDole]

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

I suppose there is a point here.   You are law abiding until there is a law made against what you do.   Then if you keep doing it, you are not law abiding. 

A law against stealing presents a law abiding person no issue.  But if stealing is somehow redefined to make it what it is not currently (and we have a number of examples of this in the political spectrum right now), then that law abiding person might not be law abiding.  

For instance, here in WA, your child says he/she is trans.   You say no you are not, you are going through a phase etc.   If they run away and somehow the state gets their hands on them, WA will not tell the parents where the child is.   The child will go to a "foster" home that is not under the foster system.  Then the child will be given the treatments they are seeking for.   This used to be only a result of serious abuse, either mental or physical.   Now this opinion regarding trans is categorized as abuse.   And the state has made kidnapping a minor child legal for the state to do in this case.   This just became law, and there is a referendum trying to get signatures to put this on the ballot to reject it, but if not, then the parents are no longer acting legally if they do this or hold this opinion and are being forced to accept trans ideology and assist their minor child in transitioning or lose their child.   This was not the case 1 month ago, but now is based on the law that just passed the legislature and signed by the governor. 

Kind of a different example, but one that is happening right here right now.

mspart

What does this have to do with a trans kid? Are there laws against trans kids owning guns or something? 

[mspart]

19 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

@mspart I read all of your quotes. Enjoy, and agree with each of them.  I would ask in response what legislation is being proposed, or has been, that is asking to disarm the people of the United States, keeping in mind that there is a difference between disarming and well regulating? 
 

Can we at least start there, that there is a difference between disarming and regulating? It’s a lot more difficult to find a common ground starting from the extremes, rather than start from the middle and work from there. 

WR,

I don't know of a federal effort to restrict guns.   Our state of WA just outlawed new purchases of "assault " weapons.   This essentially includes any semi-automatic weapon, pistol or rifle.   There are other states doing the same.   But if the D's in Congress had the chance and didn't have to worry about getting re-elected, I have no doubt they would be coming after the weapons as well.   

I don't think we need automatic weapons and a bump stock or similar that turns a semi auto into an automatic weapon, that should be out of bounds.   It has been decided that automatic weapons are illegal for use despite the 2nd amendment.   Bombs, mortars, mines, howitzers, large guns are also illegal though we have the 2nd amendment.    I am not opposed to those.   

Just like I am not opposed to libel laws, or "shouting fire" in a theater laws that restrict my free speech.   That is a bastardization of what the Founders meant by free speech.   But still, I don't have an issue with those because they can hurt people.   One can say guns hurt people too, but I can counter not without someone doing the hurting.  And those should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.  As I mentioned earlier, we have lots of gun laws, possession laws, and use in crime laws that are not enforced now.   That would be a start maybe, start prosecuting harshly those that use guns in crimes rather than throwing the gun aspect of it out. 

mspart

[mspart]

18 minutes ago, BobDole said:

What does this have to do with a trans kid? Are there laws against trans kids owning guns or something? 

I think you are smart enough that you will see eventually that it was an example of changing a law so that those that were law abiding are not now law abiding.   Just by changing a definition.   Especially because that is what I said it was.    But keep your blinders on and don't read too much into anything or try to get the meaning of what is being said.   It is a time honored tradition. 

mspart 

 

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

WR,

I don't know of a federal effort to restrict guns.   Our state of WA just outlawed new purchases of "assault " weapons.   This essentially includes any semi-automatic weapon, pistol or rifle.   There are other states doing the same.   But if the D's in Congress had the chance and didn't have to worry about getting re-elected, I have no doubt they would be coming after the weapons as well.   

I don't think we need automatic weapons and a bump stock or similar that turns a semi auto into an automatic weapon, that should be out of bounds.   It has been decided that automatic weapons are illegal for use despite the 2nd amendment.   Bombs, mortars, mines, howitzers, large guns are also illegal though we have the 2nd amendment.    I am not opposed to those.   

Just like I am not opposed to libel laws, or "shouting fire" in a theater laws that restrict my free speech.   That is a bastardization of what the Founders meant by free speech.   But still, I don't have an issue with those because they can hurt people.   One can say guns hurt people too, but I can counter not without someone doing the hurting.  And those should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.  As I mentioned earlier, we have lots of gun laws, possession laws, and use in crime laws that are not enforced now.   That would be a start maybe, start prosecuting harshly those that use guns in crimes rather than throwing the gun aspect of it out. 

mspart

That’s a lot of interesting words to write and yet still not answer my yes/no question. 
 

Can we at least agree there is a difference between disarm and regulate. 

[mspart]

I figured you would want an explanation.   You did after all, ask what legislation is being proposed.  So I answered that one, must have missed the other. 

Yes.   What we have now is regulation.   But don't for a minute believe there aren't those that want to disarm or allow only peashooters. 

mspart

Edited June 23, 2023 by mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

I figured you would want an explanation.   You did after all, ask what legislation is being proposed.  So I answered that one, must have missed the other. 

Yes.   What we have now is regulation.   But don't for a minute believe there aren't those that want to disarm or allow only peashooters. 

mspart

Yes will do for now. I’m tired.
Enjoy Seattle. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[BobDole]

23 minutes ago, mspart said:

I think you are smart enough that you will see eventually that it was an example of changing a law so that those that were law abiding are not now law abiding.   Just by changing a definition.   Especially because that is what I said it was.    But keep your blinders on and don't read too much into anything or try to get the meaning of what is being said.   It is a time honored tradition. 

mspart 

 

No it was a weird way to make this a trans issue. Trans people are the flavor of the week for you and your cronies so you have to find a way to pull them into any subject possible. Once you mentioned trans I stopped reading. 

[BobDole]

23 minutes ago, mspart said:

 

Yes.   What we have now is regulation.   But don't for a minute believe there aren't those that want to disarm or allow only peashooters. 

mspart

And there are others who want no regulations. There are people who believe the earth is flat. There are people who hate others for their skin color. I can go on for days of what people think or believe. What is your point? 

[BerniePragle]

Well, about all I learned from this thread is why some people are called Progressives and some aren't.  Left to your own devices, some of you would still be wearing fig leaves and riding donkeys.

[WrestlingRasta]

9 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

Well, about all I learned from this thread is why some people are called Progressives and some aren't.  Left to your own devices, some of you would still be wearing fig leaves and riding donkeys.

And your tremendous contribution to the discussion is appreciated. 

[BerniePragle]

5 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

And your tremendous contribution to the discussion is appreciated. 

Would you have rathered I highjacked the thread with a bunch of unrelated blather out of the conservative playbook?  To wit:
"For instance, here in WA, your child says he/she is trans..."

Or would you have rathered I pulled out the well-worn  "They're after us" gem that we've all heard a bazillion times?  To wit: 
"But don't for a minute believe there aren't those that want to disarm or allow only peashooters."

Thanks to the sheep following along as they've been trained to, this thread was going exactly the same place as the same discussion has gone in our country.  Nowhere.  Exactly as planned by those making money through said inaction.
 

[mspart]

14 hours ago, BobDole said:

No it was a weird way to make this a trans issue. Trans people are the flavor of the week for you and your cronies so you have to find a way to pull them into any subject possible. Once you mentioned trans I stopped reading. 

Excellent.   So I don't have to worry about what I write because you just tune out.  You have your opinion on what I wrote but I can tell you your assumption is wrong.  But you missed my explanation about it because you didn't read it.   Interesting way to gain information.   Read until you don't want to read anymore and make up an assumption about the meaning of what you did not read.  

mspart

[mspart]

15 hours ago, BobDole said:

And there are others who want no regulations. There are people who believe the earth is flat. There are people who hate others for their skin color. I can go on for days of what people think or believe. What is your point? 

Why are you bringing in other topics Bob.   What's your point?

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

47 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Would you have rathered I highjacked the thread with a bunch of unrelated blather out of the conservative playbook?  To wit:
"For instance, here in WA, your child says he/she is trans..."

Or would you have rathered I pulled out the well-worn  "They're after us" gem that we've all heard a bazillion times?  To wit: 
"But don't for a minute believe there aren't those that want to disarm or allow only peashooters."

Thanks to the sheep following along as they've been trained to, this thread was going exactly the same place as the same discussion has gone in our country.  Nowhere.  Exactly as planned by those making money through said inaction.
 

Nope, that was much more significant.  

[BobDole]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Why are you bringing in other topics Bob.   What's your point?

mspart

You only care about your whataboutisms. You don't actually care about the issue at hand. You only care about the extremes and offer no solutions or real dialogue other than what the other guy is doing. The retoric you spew adds nothing to the conversation, such as how you want to somehow make this a trans issue.

[mspart]

3 minutes ago, BobDole said:

You only care about your whataboutisms. You don't actually care about the issue at hand. You only care about the extremes and offer no solutions or real dialogue other than what the other guy is doing. The retoric you spew adds nothing to the conversation, such as how you want to somehow make this a trans issue.

You are stuck on that aren't you?    I used that as an example of how law abiding citizens can all of the sudden not be law abiding citizens.   The conversation was talking about law abiding gun toting citizens.   They can quickly be made non law abiding citizens.   That is the point Bob.   I don't know why you cannot make that connection.  Not sure why I have to spell it out again for you since you didn't even read my original post which clearly stated this.   Yet you have an opinion on what I wrote that you didn't bother to read.    That's just plain silly.   Why don't you read the post instead of making up stuff about things you haven't even read.   

Please rather than just complain and tell me what I'm concerned about, go at them one by one rather than being general.   That might be more informative and useful rather than discussing something you admit you know nothing of because you didn't even bother to read it.   That would be preferable to a bunch of general "you are only concerned about whataboutisms".   Don't you think?

Whatabout you read a post before condemning it?   Whatabout being informed before you go spouting off on something you didn't even bother to read?   Whatabout staying on topic when you complain about someone else for straying off topic?   Yes, I'm concerned about a lot of whataboutisms.    

mspart

 

[Plasmodium]

For those who share the opinion poor parenting drives shootings, what distinguishes parenting in the USA from a peer country such as the UK, Australia or Canada?

[mspart]

18 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

For those who share the opinion poor parenting drives shootings, what distinguishes parenting in the USA from a peer country such as the UK, Australia or Canada?

 

I'm not sure what you do about poor parenting on a national level.   I don't know the distinguishing characteristics between nations.  But here is one I think about. 

There has been an increase in student cheating over the past few decades.   It has happened since time immemorial.  But parents used to teach their kids that it was better to be honest than to lie.  And it is better not to cheat because you are only cheating yourself and others.   I'm sure many parents still teach this, but I'm also sure many don't. 

I'm guessing this is just as prevalent in UK, Australia and Canada.   It does come back to parents instilling good ethics in their children while young and not letting them get away with breaking this.   Else they learn it is a bunch of hokum.   Who want's a doctor treating them that cheated through school?  Or an Engineer who designs bridges and airplanes and buildings?  But it seems that is the direction.   If this is not stopped in the home, it will not stop.   But to get parents, on a national level to do this would be very difficult.  

I do remember the ad campaign with the Indian crying due to trash in the water and roadways.   It was actually a very effective campaign and we had a cleaner world in general from littering.   Now I see crap all over the roads.   Why?  Could it be because parents are not teaching about littering?  Could be. 

I'm not so sure poor parenting drives shootings.   Most people instinctively know killing people is a No No.   No matter what parents do, there will always be those that are bad people because they want to be bad.  And lately, it seems the shootings are coming from mentally unstable people and parents can only do so much with that these days except drug them.   And when the kid decides to go off the drugs, the parents don't have a say because the kid is 18 or more.   Or perhaps the drugs are causing aberrant behavior.  

But in general, I think the more parents instill good ethics into their children, the less likely they will go killing people.  How to do that on a national level is the question. 

mspart

 

[WrestlingRasta]

I don’t think anyone can honestly distinguish the differences in parenting between the countries without spending ample time in those countries to get a handle on it. 
 

You certainly compare and contrast parenting through generations here in the US.  Over the course of the 2000’s I have lived in the Great Lakes region, Colorado; and South Florida. Across the board I have seen an increase in parent driven entitlement, along with a parent driven decrease in coping skills. I said somewhere on here previously, we don’t  force or teach kids coping skills nearly as much anymore. We don’t force kids into pressure situations with an average or better risk of failure. And often when ‘failure’ occurs, we don’t look at where we came up short and what we can do more or better, we make excuses, blame others, and make the kids feel like it was someone else’s malfeasance, rather than doing what the most successful people in the world do, which is fail over and over until they get it right. 
 

We are raising more and more kids like this, while also allowing them to have more and more access to these social media ‘influencers’, which was never around in generations past, and then sending them out in the real world. 

[WrestlingRasta]

48 minutes ago, mspart said:

I'm not so sure poor parenting drives shootings.   Most people instinctively know killing people is a No No.   No matter what parents do, there will always be those that are bad people because they want to be bad.  And lately, it seems the shootings are coming from mentally unstable people and parents can only do so much with that these days except drug them.   And when the kid decides to go off the drugs, the parents don't have a say because the kid is 18 or more.   Or perhaps the drugs are causing aberrant behavior.  

But in general, I think the more parents instill good ethics into their children, the less likely they will go killing people.  How to do that on a national level is the question. 

mspart

 

Wow

This mentality is certainly part of the issue. Can’t do anything so just drug them. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[mspart]

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Wow

This mentality is certainly part of the issue. Can’t do anything so just drug them. 

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/features/national-prevalence-adhd-and-treatment.html

CDC scientists found that, as of 2016, 6.1 million children aged 2-17 years living in the U.S. had been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which is similar to previous estimates. Researchers also found that children living in rural areas were more likely to have been diagnosed with ADHD and less likely to receive behavioral treatment in the past year compared with children living in urban or suburban areas.

Among all children 2-17 years of age with ADHD, researchers also found:

• 6 out of 10 (62%) were taking medication for their ADHD, and represent 1 out of 20 of all U.S. children;
• Just under half (47%) received any behavioral treatment for their ADHD in the past year. Among the youngest children (2-5 years of age), the number increased to over half (60%);
• Nearly two-thirds (64%) also had another mental, emotional, or behavioral disorder, such as conduct disorder, anxiety, depression, autism, and Tourette syndrome.

It seems to be a thing.

mspart